Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Dusseldorf

European Union – Trade marks. Article 14 of Directive (EC) 2008/95, read in conjunction with art 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, should be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which the invalidity or revocation of an earlier national mark, the seniority of which was claimed for an EU mark, could be established a posteriori only if the conditions for that invalidity or that revocation had been met, not only on the date on which that earlier national mark had been surrendered or the date on which it had lapsed, but also on the date on which the judicial decision making that finding was taken. The Court of Justice so held in proceedings concerning a declaration a posteriori that the national marks owned by the applicant company which it had previously surrendered were void.

Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg v Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Dusseldorf

European Union – Trade marks. Article 14 of Directive (EC) 2008/95, read in conjunction with art 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, should be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which the invalidity or revocation of an earlier national mark, the seniority of which was claimed for an EU mark, could be established a posteriori only if the conditions for that invalidity or that revocation had been met, not only on the date on which that earlier national mark had been surrendered or the date on which it had lapsed, but also on the date on which the judicial decision making that finding was taken. The Court of Justice so held in proceedings concerning a declaration a posteriori that the national marks owned by the applicant company which it had previously surrendered were void.